University of Denver Campus Climate for Students Working Group
Report of Findings and Recommendations
January 22, 2015
Molly Hooker, Director, Graduate Student Services
Gina Johnson, Ph.D., Executive Director, Institutional Research & Analysis
Arthur Jones, Ph.D., Clinical Professor and Associate Dean, Colorado Women’s College
Niki Latino, Ph.D., Executive Director, Academic Resources, Student Life
Introduction
The University of Denver’s commitment to embedding inclusive excellence into the fabric of our dynamic
learning environment is done with everyone taking shared responsibility and shared ownership through
education and training, intentional planning and implementation, assessment, and accountability. The Campus
Climate for Students Working Group report focuses on how to improve the students’ experience by creating a
more welcoming and affirming campus climate for all students with purposeful focus on three subset
populations of students (international students, domestic students of color, and LGBTIQ students) whose
responses to the most recent campus climate survey suggested the need for focused attention to improving their
experience as valued members of our campus community. The following sections will include an explanation of
the working group’s focus, a brief history of the past 20 years of progress, and recommendations to create a
more inclusive campus climate.
Creation and Purpose of the Working Group
The idea of a Campus Climate for Students Working Group was conceived in the fall of 2013 by Dr. Frank
Tuitt, Associate Provost for Inclusive Excellence. An important motivating factor was the need to follow-up on
the results of campus climate surveys that had been administered at DU, the most recent of which was
conducted in the fall of 2012 (http://www.du.edu/cme/resources/campus-climate.html).
While the 2012 survey was administered to faculty, staff and students across campus, an analysis of student
responses suggested that many students believe that DU is moving in the right direction when it comes to the
establishment of an inclusive, welcoming campus climate. In their responses, many students indicated that this
was true both in and outside of classroom environments. At the same time, the responses also revealed some
troubling perceptions of significant lingering problems in our campus climate. This was especially the case for
undergraduate and graduate student respondents from historically underrepresented and marginalized
communities, including three subgroups in particular: domestic students of color, international students, and
LGBTIQ students.
In general, the goal established for the Campus Climate for Students Working Group was to unpack the
quantitative and qualitative results of students’ responses to the 2012 survey. A part of the plan included
Page 1 of 20 CAMPUS CLIMATE FOR STUDENTS WORKING GROUP REPORT collaborating with a newly created faculty research team that was assembled to assist the working group by
conducting a new research study. The focus of the planned study was to explore, using selected focus groups,
the lived experiences of historically underrepresented students at DU.
The working group was charged with coming up with concrete, executable recommendations for advancing
inclusive excellence at DU, with particular attention to issues of climate, culture, retention, barriers and
opportunities for success for historically underrepresented undergraduate and graduate students at DU.
The Big Picture: Evolution of Diversity and Inclusion Efforts at DU*
Over the last 20 years there has been a steady increase in institutional efforts focused on diversity and inclusion
at DU. Dating back to the early 1990s, an Office of Minority Affairs, located in a small house on High Street,
near the northwest end of campus, operated support services for students of color on campus. At the same time,
the admissions office began efforts to increase the compositional diversity of the student population.
In 2001, when Dr. Robert Coombe was appointed as provost, the Office of Minority Affairs (renamed Office of
Multicultural Affairs) moved to a new, larger facility on University Blvd, near the northeast corner of the
campus. The position of Director of the newly named Office of Multicultural Affairs was elevated to the level
of Associate Provost. Dr. Sallye McKee was the first person hired under this new title. New staff positions were
created and the scope of responsibility of the office was expanded to include responsibility for overseeing and
supporting diversity and inclusion efforts for the whole campus.
In 2002, under the leadership of Dr. Jesus Treviño, the name of the Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA) was
changed to the “Center for Multicultural Excellence (CME),” to reflect a different philosophy and perspective
regarding campus diversity. Specifically, the change represented a movement away from the deficit model,
which conceptualizes diversity as a problem involving disadvantaged, under-prepared, and culturally deprived
people, to an asset-based validation model that conceptualizes diversity as an asset involving talented and gifted
individuals who contribute to the very teaching, learning, service, and research mission of the University. In
addition, CME began to work with students, staff, faculty, administrators, and alumni using a more inclusive
definition of diversity, which includes race/ethnicity, gender identity and expression, religion, sexual
orientation, disability, nationality, age, and other salient social dimensions. And in 2002, the first Diversity
Summit was presented on campus, drawing participants from on campus and throughout the region in what has
now become an annual, high-level conference exploring innovative practices in diversity and inclusion in higher
education.
In 2006, the Center for Multicultural Excellence initiated a campaign to introduce the concept and practice of
Inclusive Excellence at DU. The concept was unveiled at the 2006 Diversity Summit by Dr. Alma ClaytonPedersen, then Vice-President for Institutional Renewal with the Association of American Colleges and
Universities (AAC&U). The AAC&U concept of Inclusive Excellence was adopted in an effort to move the
University of Denver away from a simplistic definition of diversity to a more inclusive, comprehensive, and
omnipresent notion of diversity that transfers the responsibility for diversity on the campus to everyone, (i.e.,
Page 2 of 20 CAMPUS CLIMATE FOR STUDENTS WORKING GROUP REPORT administrators, faculty, staff, and students) as opposed to one unit or department shouldering the work of
diversity. Inclusive Excellence in practice, also sought to shift the concept of diversity from a numerical
representation (numbers only) of diverse faculty, staff, and students to transforming the institution into a vibrant
community that embeds diversity throughout the institution in multiple areas including (but not limited to)
demographics (numbers), curriculum, policies, pedagogy, financial resources, leadership, hiring, student
learning, marketing, technology, teaching, student advising, and much more.i
In 2005 Dr. Coombe was appointed to Chancellor. In 2007, during his Convocation address, Chancellor
Coombe affirmed the University’s commitment to Inclusive Excellence when he stated, “DU will be a
university where diversity, inclusion and excellence mold leaders for a changing America.” This theme was
expanded upon in a new University of Denver Diversity Statement, which in part stated:
The University of Denver community is strongly committed to the pursuit of excellence by
including and integrating individuals who represent different groups as defined by race,
ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic background, age, disability, national origin
and religion. The University's commitment to diversity in particular requires that we attract
members of historically under-represented racial and ethnic groups. To create a rich academic,
intellectual and cultural environment for everyone, our concern must extend beyond
representation to genuine participation.
In 2011, Chancellor Coombe formed an Inclusive Excellence Advisory Group (chaired by Interim Associate
Provost Jim Moran), which was charged with developing an Inclusive Excellence Strategic Plan for the
University. The advisory group used the University’s Diversity Statement to form the basis of their strategic
plan, which prioritized four major areas for strategic action, one of which was “creating a supportive climate for
diversity.”
Understanding that making progress in these four goals would depend on the “commitment of the central
administration to using its power and influence to advance change” the IE advisory group recommended that
that the scope of responsibilities and authority for the Associate Provost for Inclusive Excellence be formulated
to include collaborative work across areas such as admissions, human resources, faculty development,
marketing and communication, academic deans, curricula, and institutional advancement in an effort to enhance
diversity across the institution. In completing their work, the advisory group acknowledged that their report was
“Stage One” in that it described “many of the goals, objectives, and suggested action steps but did not provide
detailed guidelines for implementation of the actions.” For this plan to come alive, there was an
acknowledgment that the University would need to develop a “Stage Two” that would address implementation.
In 2012, Dr. Frank Tuitt was appointed as the Associate Provost for Inclusive Excellence, with the
understanding that under his leadership the Center for Multicultural Excellence would play a major role in the
University’s effort to implement the IE strategic plan. Shortly after Dr. Tuitt’s arrival and in alignment with the
University of Denver's Inclusive Excellence Strategic Plan, CME adopted a number of goals that prioritized an
Page 3 of 20 CAMPUS CLIMATE FOR STUDENTS WORKING GROUP REPORT increase in compositional diversity across all sectors of the university, the imbedding of principles of Inclusive
Excellence within the fabric of the learning environment, an external focus on the realization of inclusively
focused, “public good” engagement with external constituencies, and a focused effort to “sustain a supportive,
challenging, welcoming and inclusive climate where all members are respected and their contributions
valued.” In addition to the above goals, several changes were made in the organizational structure of CME to
ensure that its activities were in alignment with 2011 IE Strategic Plan Goals, and the office has continued to
work with the administration to move to the next, important step of focused implementation.
---This brief historical sketch demonstrates the fact of an expanding commitment to diversity and inclusion at the
University over the last 20 years, including an understanding that the building of a diverse campus community
requires attention to both numbers (compositional diversity) and institutional climate. However, the current
working group, as well as the working groups on the Status of Women and Status of People of Color, were
formed with a clear concern, based on quantitative and qualitative survey data, that the issue of institutional
climate is highly complex. While there has been progress, the survey results demonstrate that the University has
a long way to go to reach its goal of building a campus culture that is truly welcoming and inclusive. And since
the University exists primarily to serve students, it is especially important that we do everything we can to
ensure that all students experience the University as a place where they are welcomed, respected, and valued for
their contributions to the University community. The efforts of the current Campus Climate for Students
Working Group were directed at coming up with recommendations to assist DU in its continuing commitment
to making that goal a reality.
*Major parts of this history are drawn from the website of the University of Denver Center for Multicultural
Excellence (http://www.du.edu/cme/about/history.html)
Working Group Membership
Molly Hooker, Arthur Jones and Niki Latino were invited to serve as co-chairs of the Campus Climate for
Students Working Group, and the following staff, faculty and student members comprised the final working
group, in response to invitations from Dr. Tuitt and the co-chairs:í
Douglas Allen (Daniels College of Business: Globalization)
Frédérique Chevillot (Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences: Languages and Literature)
Katie Fredrick (Sturm College of Law: Student Affairs)
Alejandro García Fernandez (Undergraduate Student Representative: On-Campus Senator and Diversity
Committee Chair, Undergraduate Student Government)
David Gowdey (Office of Internationalization)
Jennifer Hoffman (Natural Sciences and Mathematics: Physics and Astronomy)
Gina Johnson (Institutional Research and Analysis)
Devin Joshi (Korbel School of International Studies)
Johnny Kim (Graduate School of Social Work)
Pilyoung Kim (Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences: Psychology)
Page 4 of 20 CAMPUS CLIMATE FOR STUDENTS WORKING GROUP REPORT Fernand Lubuguin (Graduate School of Professional Psychology)
Linda Olson (Learning Communities and Civic Engagement)
Tracey Peters, (Center for Multicultural Excellence)
Michael Shay (Veteran Services)
Billy Stratton (Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences: English)
Vanessa Teck (Graduate Student Representative: Director of Inclusive Excellence, Graduate Student
Government)
Frank Tuitt (Associate Provost for Inclusive Excellence), Ex-officio
Recruitment of Fourth Working Group Co-Chair
As the group’s work progressed to data gathering, Gina Johnson, Executive Director of the DU Office of
Institutional Research and Analysis, was invited to serve as a fourth co-chair of the working group. She was
already an active member of the group.
Faculty Research Team
Four faculty members comprise the research team to examine the lived experiences of historically
underrepresented students at DU. For a variety of reasons, including some technical glitches in the review
process of the Institutional Review Board, the research group was significantly delayed in organizing and
conducting their planned focus groups. As a result, our working group proceeded to pursue alternative data
gathering strategies aimed at meeting our charge. Those alternative data gathering strategies are summarized
below.
The research group will present the results of their research to the DU community in a separate report, upon
completion of data collection and analysis. The group includes the following DU faculty members:
Patton Garriott (Morgridge College of Education)
Judy Kiyama (Morgridge College of Education)
Lisa Martinez (Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences)
Sam Museus (Morgridge College of Education)
Overlap With Other Campus Climate Working Groups
The work of the Campus Climate for Students Working Group complements two other working groups on
campus, whose preliminary reports of findings and recommendations have recently been completed: The
Working Group on the Status of Women, and the Working Group on the Status of Faculty and Staff of Color
(http://portfolio.du.edu/statusstudies). As the university engages in a comprehensive strategic planning process,
the findings and recommendations from the studies conducted by all three working groups are intended to be
considered together in the creation of executable recommendations aimed at advancing the goals of access,
diversity and inclusivity at DU.
Page 5 of 20 CAMPUS CLIMATE FOR STUDENTS WORKING GROUP REPORT Summary of Data Gathering Efforts
This group’s original charge was to spend the 2013-2014 academic year working to develop institutional
recommendations based on the student feedback from the 2012 Campus Climate Survey as well as additional
newly collected qualitative student data gathered through focus groups from the research team. As noted above,
unforeseen delays in the work of the research team resulted in a refocusing of the current working group’s data
gathering plan. A decision was made to gather a variety of information on factors that contribute to an affirming
campus climate for students. The information was gathered through learning about current practices employed
in different areas across campus that could further inform institutional recommendations. Additionally, the
working group reviewed student compositional diversity data at DU over the last ten years, to give context to
the campus climate issues currently being examined.
Compositional Diversity Data
To begin its consideration of campus climate related to diversity, the working group reviewed compositional
diversity data for the University. The group acknowledged that increasing compositional diversity is necessary
but not sufficient to develop a climate of inclusion. Provided below is a brief visual summary of the data
reviewed by the group. While data are included for all campus constituents, this summary focuses on student
data. U.S. Census data were compared to DU data for purposes of viewing the differences between the campus
and populations of Colorado and of the United States, since the majority of students come from outside of the
state. Peer data were also provided to allow for comparison with universities that substantial numbers of
prospective DU students also consider when selecting where to enroll.
Page 6 of 20 Percent of Persons of Color as Portion of Total DU Population by Constituent Category
25% 20% 19% 15% 18% 14% 14% 20% 20% 19% 19% 16% 15% 14% 14% 20% 20% 15% 21% 20% 17% 16% 14% Undergraduate students Graduate students Instructional faculty (FT) Staff and administrators 10% 5% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Data from DU Institutional Research & Analysis
Traditional Undergraduate Admission Funnel 2009-2013
Domestic students of color
Domestic students - white
Applications
Admits
International students
Unknown
Enrolled
Page 7 of 20 CAMPUS CLIMATE FOR STUDENTS WORKING GROUP REPORT 80%
71% 72%
68% 68%
70%
65%
63%
60%
69%
67%
65%
66%
64%
70%
71%
68%
59%
50%
40%
30%
20%
19%
20% 21%
22%23%
19% 18% 19% 20%
14%
9% 9%
10%
7%
9%
6%
8%
19%
19% 19%
15%
7%
8%
6%
6%
9%
20%
18%
8%
6%
7%
0%
Data from DU institutional Research & Analysis
Percent of Domestic Undergraduate Enrollment by Race and Ethnicity, 2009-2013
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Two or More Races
White
2009
1
5
3
9
0.1
2
79
2010
1
5
4
9
0.1
3
78
2011
1
5
3
10
0.1
3
78
2012
1
5
4
10
0.1
4
78
2013
1
5
3
10
0.1
4
78
2012 Census
CO
U.S.
2
1
3
5
4
13
21
17
0.2
0.2
3
2
70
63
Data from DU Institutional Research & Analysis
Percent of Domestic Graduate Enrollment by Race and Ethnicity, 2009-2013
Page 8 of 20 American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Two or More Races
White
CAMPUS CLIMATE FOR STUDENTS WORKING GROUP REPORT 2009
1
4
4
8
0.1
1
82
2010
1
4
4
7
0.1
1
82
2011
1
4
4
7
0.1
2
82
2012
1
3
4
8
0.1
2
82
2013
1
3
4
9
0.1
3
80
2012 Census
CO
U.S.
2
1
3
5
4
13
21
17
0.2
0.2
3
2
70
63
Data from DU Institutional Research & Analysis
It is clear from the comparison to U.S. Census data that the University’s compositional diversity is not reflective
of the compositional diversity of either the state of Colorado or the United States as a whole. In general, DU has
more white students in its population than does Colorado or the U.S. and it has fewer Latino students than does
the U.S., and particularly Colorado. This difference is more pronounced in the graduate student population than
with the undergraduate students. Population projections indicate that the populations of persons of color will
increase in the state and nation, particularly the population of persons identifying as Latino.
Page 9 of 20 CAMPUS CLIMATE FOR STUDENTS WORKING GROUP REPORT Percent of Student Enrollment by Race and Ethnicity, Including International Status 2009-2013**
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Undergraduate Students
Domestic students of color
Domestic students – white
International students
Unknown
18
68
6
8
19
68
7
5
19
68
9
4
19
68
9
4
20
68
9
3
Graduate Students
Domestic students of color
Domestic students – white
International students
Unknown
14
64
7
14
15
68
8
7
16
69
9
5
15
70
10
4
17
68
11
4
Data from DU Institutional Research & Analysis
Number of Countries Represented by International Students, 2009-2013
100 92 90 85 84 2013 Top 10 Countries by number of students China Canada Saudi Arabia India Norway Mexico (tie) South Korea (tie) United Kingdom Iran Taiwan 83 80 76 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Data from DU Institutional Research & Analysis **Note: for these data, international and undeclared
race/ethnicity are not included in order to accurately compare to Census Data. Therefore the percentage of white
Page 10 of 20 CAMPUS CLIMATE FOR STUDENTS WORKING GROUP REPORT students will not match the percentage in other graphs because only domestic students are included in these
calculations.
Page 11 of 20 DU and Peer Percent of Student Population by Race/Ethnicity Category and International Status,
2009-2013
Page 12 of 20 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Unknown International Students of Color White Unknown International Students of Color White Unknown International Students of Color White Unknown International Students of Color White Unknown International Students of Color White Peers DU 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Data from IPEDS Data Center, National Center for Education Statistics
Peer comparison data on race/ethnicity and international status includes the following
peer institutions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
American University
Boston University
Colorado College
George Washington University
Gonzaga University
Santa Clara University
Southern Methodist University
Syracuse University
University of Miami
University of Puget Sound
University of San Diego
University of Southern California
Page 13 of 20 70 When compared to a group of peer institutions, DU shows higher percentages of white
students and students with unknown race/ethnicity. At the same time, DU shows lower
percentages of international students and domestic students of color.
Currently there is a lack of longitudinal data on sexual orientation and other areas of
compositional diversity. This is because the University does not currently have a
structure in place by which to collect these data from all members of the community.
While these demographics are collected as part of climate surveys conducted by DU, they
are not captured at the point of application as race/ethnicity and international status are.
Therefore it was not possible to provide similar data on other areas of diversity at this
time.
Working Group Methodology
Beginning in the winter of 2014, the working group gathered additional data in two
different ways: first, the working group invited staff and faculty from within the group
and outside of the group to participate on panels; and, second, the working group
facilitated four campus conversations that were attended by staff and faculty who work
intensely with our students. In addition, graduate students who have supplemental jobs on
campus also attended these conversations. The results of both the panel and campus
conversations can be found in the recommendation section. The following provides more
detail about the process and content focus for both the panels and the conversations.
Panel Presentations
Faculty and staff throughout campus who work with both undergraduate and
graduate students participated on the panels and addressed the following
questions:
•
•
•
•
What are the messages that you are hearing in terms of students’ experiences
with the campus climate?
Describe some strategies that you are currently using to address the climate.
What does student success look like?
Based on your experience, what do you see as potential opportunities that
could inform recommendations for institutional strategies to more
systemically transform the climate for our students?
Themed Focus Groups With Staff Support Personnel
The working group employed the Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations, and
Results (S.O.A.R.) strategic planning framework to facilitate four campus
Page 14 of 20 conversations. The first three conversations focused on one of the following
identities: international students, LGBTIQ students, and domestic students of
color. The fourth, and final, conversation focused on all three populations. The
S.O.A.R. framework centers the conversation on what the organization is doing
right that can be built upon to continue to improve. A central component of this
framework is to understand the whole by including the voices of all stakeholders.
This process is action oriented, attentive to results, and centers on innovation for
planning and implementation (Stavros & Hinrichs, 2009)***.
Participants were given an index card to write their personal answers to the
questions below. They engaged in a larger group discussion to share their ideas.
Each card was collected to ensure that all voices were heard.
Questions:
•
•
•
•
Describe what you think are the current strengths of the University in
creating a welcoming and affirming campus climate for__________
students. (Strengths)
What are __________students asking for? (Opportunities)
What do we care deeply about in terms of our __________students
experience with the campus climate? (Aspirations)
How will we know we are succeeding in improving the campus climate
for our _________ students? (Results)
After all four campus conversations were complete, the session notes and
individual notecards were reviewed for themes. This theming was completed both
by one of the co-chairs and a small group of graduate students employed by the
Center for Multicultural Excellence. The resulting themes were used as a source
of data for the recommendations listed in this report.
***Stavros, J., and Hinrichs, G. (2009). The Thin Book of SOAR: Building StrengthBased Strategy
Conclusions and Recommendations
At the outset of this project, this working group committed itself to the task of coming up
with a set of recommendations that could be forwarded to the University to be translated
into implementation strategies. In formulating recommendations, it was understood that
compositional diversity and students’ experience of institutional climate are
interconnected. In other words, there needs to be a critical mass of underrepresented
Page 15 of 20 student populations on campus, and an institutional climate that welcomes and values
those students.
The following recommendations emerged from both the panel presentations and the
campus conversations. There are five recommendation categories for both undergraduate
and graduate students. The first three categories have both overarching and identity
specific recommendations to demonstrate the macro and micro nature of a more
welcoming and affirming campus climate. The final two are inherently both macro and
micro, which is why there are only overarching categories.
1. Academic Recommendations
Overarching Recommendations
• Embed diversity and inclusiveness into the curriculum that includes
cultural competence and universal design for learning.
• Every student should graduate from the University with skills that will
equip them for working in a pluralistic world.
• Develop a reputation as a university with scholars and thinkers who are
competent with theory, research, and practice connected to issues of
access, diversity, and inclusion.
• Intentional teaching in an inclusive manner
• Explore expanding non-English language options taught in the curriculum
to: (1) permit a wider range of languages to fulfill the language
proficiency requirements; and, (2) to expand the number of languages
taught in the curriculum.
Specific Recommendations
• Opportunities to improve English language skills in classroom
situations.
• De-stigmatize and expand the ways in which writing, editing, and
citation tutoring assistance are currently offered, particularly for
international students.
• De-stigmatize and expand the ways in which tutoring and
academic support are currently offered.
• Queer studies major or minor program (undergraduate) or cognate
(graduate).
• Ethnic studies major or minor program (undergraduate) or cognate
(graduate).
2. Physical Environment
Overarching Recommendations
• Representation of portraits, artifacts, and symbols that represent the
diverse identities, backgrounds, and experiences of students attending the
University.
• Expand housing options on campus to include ELC and ECA students,
students with families, and graduate students.
Specific Recommendations
Page 16 of 20 •
•
•
•
•
Hang flags that represent the various countries that students represent
somewhere prominent on campus.
Offices that support international students, students of color, and LGTBIQ
students should have a more prominent location in the student center
which would provide both better access and collaboration across centers.
Separate from support offices, have designated facilities where students
from various affinity groups can gather informally.
Include support offices including CME, ISSS, DSP, etc. on campus tours.
Increased availability of gender neutral bathrooms on campus including
the residence halls.
3. Policies and Procedures
Overarching Recommendations
• Implement the Biased Incident Response Team and reporting system. This
campus-wide team would allow campus community members to report an
incidence of possible bias and ensure that a follow-up of the report will
occur.
• Review admission applications, University policies, and practices to
determine where improvement needs to be made with regard to access to
these areas and feeling welcomed.
• Purposefully raise endowment funds to provide more scholarships and
assistantships for students.
• Ensure that espoused inclusive excellence values during recruitment are
part of the practice in each department, with accountability controls
included.
• Commit to and provide avenues for broader student representation, beyond
official student government leaders, to participate on campus committees.
• Commit to and provide avenues for more hourly staff, who are often
underrepresented, to participate and have voice in policies and climate
focused committees of the University.
• Commit to a more participatory democratic process in the selection of
participants for informal and formal University committees. In addition,
commit to an increase in opportunities for open, voluntary dialogues.
• Explore opportunities for preferred names to be on ID card, email address,
class rosters, etc.
• Comprehensive audit of policies and procedures to: (1) create more
inclusive policies and procedures; (2) develop a shared understanding of
the policies and procedures; and, (3) fairly and consistently enforce
policies and procedures.
• Explore how to create a more centralized structure of support for
navigating the various bureaucratic structures.
Specific Recommendations
• Evaluate our data collection process, including what is captured on the
application and what can be updated and changed over time. What is
legally required and what is University specific?
Page 17 of 20 •
•
•
•
Intentional recruitment to increase the number of countries represented by
international students, with targeted scholarships.
Intentional recruitment of the student body to more accurately represent
the ever evolving multicultural and global society.
Acknowledge and review the composition of the applicants, admits, and
enrolled students in the admission pipeline to develop solutions for
diversifying the student population to better reflect the diversity of
Colorado and the US population.
Continue and expand the practice of universal design (i.e., provide
information in multiple modes to reach diverse learning styles).
4. Training and Education
Overarching Recommendations
• All students, staff, administrators, faculty, and trustees should engage in a
themed training each year to develop skills, tools, and increased
knowledge in inclusive excellence at the personal, interpersonal, and
climate levels. Topic ideas include but are not limited to unconscious bias,
micro-aggressions, cultural competence, intercultural awareness, and
universal design..
• Administrators, staff, and faculty who have experience in engaging
students in conversations to help them find a sense of belonging could
have a decal that demonstrates this openness so that students know who
they can engage in these types of conversations.
• Training and education for awareness in the classroom to ensure that
students are not invisible or hyper-visible.
• Communicate widely the ways in which all of these efforts ultimately
benefit the entire University, and not just students from underrepresented
groups.
5. Partnerships and Collaboration
Overarching Recommendations
• Dedicate staff, faculty, and administrators to oversee bodies such as the
Green Light Initiative (which brings offices on campus together to
streamline services and messaging for students) and the I.E. Collective (an
open, campus-wide collaborative group consisting of various students,
staff, and faculty members dedicated to IE efforts) to give more authority
and voice to these committees. These are campus partners coming together
to enhance the overall student experience.
• Promote collaborations among domestic and international inclusive
excellence events/programs across campus and implement specific plans
to integrate domestic students/faculty/staff to the events.
---When the Campus Climate for Students Working Group was first convened in the fall of 2013,
there was unanimous agreement among the working group members that it was essential that the
work of the group should conclude with a set of recommendations that would be handed off to
Page 18 of 20 someone in the University who would be accountable for implementation. Virtually all of the
members of the working group have had past experiences of working on committees and task
forces at the University whose contributions were acknowledged and honored, but whose actual
recommendations were not advanced to an implementation phase. And as noted in the summary
of the laudable diversity and inclusion efforts that have been forged at the University over the last
20 years, the next step in the process needs to be focused on the development of accountable
systems of implementation, building on the wisdom that has been drawn from so much good
work on campus.
The Campus Climate for Students Working Group is therefore pleased with the publicly visible,
action-oriented, multi-step strategic planning process being driven by the Chancellor’s office,
with the clear aim of substantive institutional transformation, with principles of inclusive
excellence at the center of the process. It was in this context that we pushed to complete this
report on the timetable advertised for the submission of recommendations to the four Phase One
task forces (Equity, Diversity and Inclusive Excellence; Student Access and Support; Professional
Development for Faculty and Staff; and Expanding Sustainability on Campus), which have been
charged with the translation of recommendations from the various working groups into
implementable action items for the next stage in the strategic planning process. Accordingly, this
report is being shared with the Chancellor’s office for appropriate distribution to those task
forces, who are preparing their final, executable recommendations.
Page 19 of 20 Page 20 of 20